Warsaw School of Economics - reunion

When thinking up address of the blog over seventeen years ago, I deliberately chose to name it and nickname myself "student SGH". Back at that time being half-way into university education at the most prestigious academy of economics in Poland at that time was a part of my identity. 

Despite the above, I did not want that chapter to last long. I pressed ahead to graduate possible quickly and swap university halls for corporate open spaces. I have never had nature of a scholar (though in early days of the blog I wrote much about economics and the likes) and 15 years into the corporate world I consider myself a practitioner, having little fondness nor sentiment for university education, especially since nearly two decades ago universities used to be a backwater.

Over 15 years since the end of my formal education (counting out the CFA programme) a few reunions were held, but until last Saturday, I did not attend any, including the celebration of 120 years of my high school (liceum) in October 2025. This time my SGH schoolmate, Ola, prompted me to sign up and take part in SGH graduates' reunion.

While turning up at the scene, I learnt 450 attendees had been registered, with a minor fraction of them not showing up. This meant on average 10 graduates from each year were present, accounting for far less than 1% of all alumni. The news of the reunion had not been widespread, the early-summer timing not most suitable and the cost, especially in terms of value for money could have been prohibitive.

The official opening lasted two hours, was relatively enjoyable, yet not memorable. It was followed by a lunch and unofficial networking time with attendees roaming around the campus or sitting in circles to chat with one another. Since a long time I had not talked to so many strangers over one day. Oddly enough, many casual conversations were more than small talks, but none of them has not been converted into any connection going beyond the reunion timeframe.

As of today I cannot assert if I would take part in such reunion again, but since the next is due in 10 years, I can be holding back on this decision.

Weather note: the most intense heatwave in history is haunting Poland and many other CEE countries this weekend. I am in course of compiling a heatwave summary for posterity, due to be published here next Sunday. Take care of yourselves and don't shrug off the peril!

How not to screw your children’s lives - book review

Can’t recall now how I have come across a series of books by Mikołaj Marcela which dissect imperfections of the Polish schooling system. Past reading some of them, I do not wholeheartedly agree with all of the author’s assertions, yet I find the book valuable.

Familiarising with its content made me realise the current primary and secondary education system is based on principles worked out in Prussia in the first half of the nineteenth century and rests on obedience and discipline. The Prussian government, by imposing common schooling obligation wanted not just to promulgate education, but aimed at bringing up submissive citizens.

As the author points out, the schooling system in Poland and in most countries is uniform, not unique. All pupils, regardless of their unique talents and skills are pushed into ruthless frames of standardisation which kill the lust for knowledge and talent development.

Core deficiencies of Polish schools, nimbly depicted in the book are accurately pinpointed.
1) Agreeably, Polish school do not teach skills that could come in useful in real life. I wonder whether the assumption is that young adults should be taught useful skills at home, or that should learn the hard way the moment life necessitates it.
2) Beyond all doubt, school to not teach how to learn – such techniques need to worked out and mastered by pupils themselves.
3) Sadly the curricula too often favour memorizing facts, instead of focusing on understanding causations and teaching how to seek out information and to verify them (particularly important in the era of fake news).

With some exceptions of outstanding teachers, school classes do not inspire, seldom kick-start talent nurturing, rarely spur curiosity. Pupils are infrequently encouraged to challenge their tutors, to debate with one another. This is all put down to an obsolete model of one-side interactions between teachers and students, with the former passing on knowledge and testing its acquisition and the latter obediently listening and swotting up for tests and exams.

With the diagnosis of all the ailments eating up the Polish schooling one also must keep in mind several obstacles hinder its turnaround. A major reform would require a general consensus between stakeholders (government, teachers, parents) of the current system that it badly needs an overhaul and on directions in which it would need to be reshaped. Besides, if we were to ditch standardisation and treat children individually, it would require more workforce of higher quality, which means much more money (payrolls, but infrastructure too) would need to be injected to the education system. There also ought to be consensus a substantial chunk of public finances should be laid out for the education system, which in decades will determine Polish economy’s competitiveness. Those expenses would certainly pay themselves off.

P.S. On personal front, doing reasonably fine, though with ups and downs typical for such getting-over periods.

Finish line crossed

Over! Done! Saw the back of it!

As some of you probably remember, yesterday I sat for the Level III exam. I think I did well. Unlike fellow candidates to whom I spoke at the test centre, I found the exam quite easy and approachable. I’m hoping for the best and wait until 11 August 2015, when results are sent out. I somehow cannot imagine myself putting this tremendous effort again.

When signing up for the Level III soon after learning I had passed Level II I resolved to go an extra mile to do it properly and ensure I would get it right. The amount of work one has to do to pass the hardest in my opinion Level III, is so vast that it simply does not pay off to cut corners and risk a failure. I suppose the time spent to prepare for Level III once, yet properly is shorter than time spent to swot up twice, yet without going the extra mile. I somehow envy those candidates for who the first Saturday of June (and weeks preceding it) was a wipe-out for a few years in a row and still they haven’t got ahead. For the sake of clarity, I don’t know whether I pass, yet I feel quite comfortable, yet the fail scenario seems conceivable and stays somewhere at the back of my mind, just in case.

Plus I feel a lot of admiration to folks who have families and have managed to earn a charter while working, running the house, looking after children. For those guys the challenge was much bigger than for me and no wonder in that group the percentage of candidates who give up is higher so hats down to those who hammer it home.

Average age of the candidates who took the exam with me was definitely below 30; probably many of them even if they pass for the time being will not be eligible for the Charter due to too short work experience. Plus it has to be noted number of Level III candidates (I estimate around 200, most of them were retaking the exam – since in Poland asset management industry is not well-developed, many concepts from the Level III curriculum are vague for Poles, so pass rate in Poland is quite likely below average) augurs the number of Charterholders in Poland this year is likely to exceed 500 (currently the Institute’s page shows 460 Charterholders from Poland).

If I am to share post-exam thoughts, I’d reiterate the ones committed to the blog after Level I and Level II and supplement or repeat the following…

1) In Poland the Charter does not give you any specific qualifications, it rather bears testimony of your intelligence (not everyone is capable of passing all three levels, let’s face it) and willpower (it takes a lot of determination and sacrifices to get to the top)

2) The very exam tests not only your knowledge and ability to crack exam questions, but also your physical endurance and planning capabilities or even adroitness (how to take a piss and not drop your calculator to the urinal). I do not know why it is held in early June, but I suppose it has something to do with checking out whether candidates can resist the temptation when the springtime beckons, it has something to do with weather (yesterday not very conducive, day-time high of +27C, despite air-conditioning switched on it was sultry inside the testing room).

Currently I find myself slightly unable to set my mind into the post-exam mode (I had no problems finding myself free after Level I and Level II). The prospect of not having to pore over books fills me with pleasure, yet I am much more tired-out than after Level I (with hindsight, it was a piece of cake) and Level II, when I was bound to set off for holidays (on Tuesday I have to return to work and I’m bracing myself for a head-on collision with the gruelling corpo-reality). Time to pick up the pieces and maybe the life will not be about putting out fires as it has been since late February.

Economics for masses

A shame economics is not widely taught at schools during the ‘general education’ stage. The high-school curriculum includes a course in ‘basics of entrepreneurship’, which gives brief overview of rudimentary economic concepts to teenagers, but attention the course receives from both teachers (who often deem it to be a ball and chain to do everything to tick it off) and students seems inadequate. The upshot is that understanding of economics among ordinary people appears insufficient.

Basic grasp of economics (as well as of any discipline, ranging from fine arts, through physics, ending on medicine) is essential to function well in the contemporary world and to understand how it all works. I do not posit an ordinary man should be familiar with all the concepts a first-year student of economics should know inside out to get a pass in courses in basic micro- and macroeconomics or finance. An average man should not learn by heart formulas, solve equations, nor drill down vague concepts. An average man should recognise some causations and be aware how some phenomena affect their own personal finances.

Command of basic economic principles, from what I have observed, gives you one ultimate benefit in life. If you are well-versed in economics, you are less likely to be deceived by other people. And those who are most likely to trick you come usually from three groups: politicians, journalists and self-styled financial advisors. Politicians tend to over-promise, but an economically literate voters should be able to assess whether the promises are affordable for the state. Journalists in Poland too often have too little notion on topics they write about, or do not carry out extensive research before spewing out an article, but economically literate readers should be able to distinguish substantive piece from a bullshit (pardon the foul language). Financial advisors are those who try to appear as wiser than you when it comes to managing your personal finances, while in fact they are just fee-oriented salespeople, who advise you what is good for them. An excellent example of a man who fell victim of their “advice” was a guy who in 2007 looked for a loan to buy a flat. Property prices at that time were sky-high, but paradigm that they will double over the next decade was still widespread and risk tolerance excessive. Prompted by a financial advisor, he took out a 110% CHF-denominated mortgage to finance a flat purchase for 400,000 PLN. The remaining 40,000 PLN he invested in aggressive investment fund at the peak of stock market bull market. In 2007 his assets equalled liabilities and stood at 440,000 PLN. After the financial crisis: value of his flat dropped from 400,000 PLN to 300,000 PLN, half of his contribution into investment fund evaporated, his mortgage debt, converted into PLN, mounted to 800,000 PLN. A few years later the guy’s assets were 320,000 PLN, while his liabilities were 2.5 times higher.

The approach in which you focus on outcomes of economic processes, without exploring details, is far too rare in today’s economic discourse. Those who propagate speaking about economics in simple words, intelligible for an average man, deserve the biggest accolades. Tadeusz Mosz, who departed last Wednesday, was one of such men. His TV and radio programmes have done a superb job in terms of promoting economic literacy among masses. He had his own unique style and his guests had to conform to it. In his programmes there was little room for economic jargon; meanders of economics were straightened out into plain language and outcomes were favoured over the workings. Mr Mosz was facing a huge challenge, since in economics “it depends” is the answer to too many questions. For example, if you ask, whether it is good for an average Pole, if PLN appreciates and bad when zloty depreciates, or the other way round, there is no straightforward answer. It depends on a variety of factors. And you can go on for hours about them… A mediocre economist could witter on about exchange rate movements and their whys and wherefores endlessly. A clever economist, appearing in Mr Mosz’s programme before audience made up of ordinary people, would have to squeeze the answer into a few straightforward, informative sentences in plain Polish.

For many months I have not followed Mr Mosz’s programmes. I would not be even able to tell you how long before his departure he had ceased to turn up on air. Some four years ago, as a student, I would follow his “Plus Minus” programme in TVP Info on day-by-day basis. I used to watch it, but I was not fond of it. As a student fascinated by complexity of economics and financial markets, I found the discussions moderated by Mr Mosz over-simplified, far over-simplified. I craved for splitting hairs, touching hearts of problems, while Tadeusz Mosz’s guests focused on what economic phenomena mean for ordinary people. With hindsight I see at that time I was out of his league.

Mr Mosz’s style of presence in the public discourse bears out, again, the paramount importance of linguistic clarity. To be an expert in a specific area, you need to have extensive knowledge, but to be an outstanding, widely appreciated expert, you must be able to share your knowledge with ordinary audience in simple words. The ability to convert intricate issues into plain language is the skill that ought to be fostered.

Tadeusz Mosz’s death came as a bolt from the blue. He had no makings of a celebrity, so no one could keep track of his struggle against cancer in gossip columns. For the last weeks he suffered in silence and passed away in silence, with dignity. His departure is a great loss for economic journalism in Poland, as I dare to claim no other journalist has done so much to bring economics closer to people and help them understand for it affects their lives. His work should be carried on, but is there any successor who could take it over?

After-exam after-thoughts

Happy to leave it behind, now an almost two-month long wait to get the result begins. Given the difficulty of the exam and level of my preparation I should be quite secure about the outcome, yet far from certainty… Many questions were tricky, means to mislead candidates, so in this case, seeing is believing, albeit I believe I did well.

For sake of brevity, just a few observations…

1. I’m getting older... Most candidates I saw yesterday looked like students. Maybe I can’t properly assess people’s age by their look, maybe many didn’t look their age, but it seems I’m lagging a few years behind the most ambitious youngsters. Some of my university friends took this exam, i.e. were on the same stage of development in June 2009, yet none has reached the end of the road and many are struggling to make further steps forward. I wanted to reach this milestone before my 25th birthday and did it.

2. It’s a men’s world... I dare to estimate roughly 80% of candidates were males. I could go on about possible explanations for this, but I will only take the liberty of mentioning there are no barriers to entry to the programme and signing up is absolutely voluntary, so I believe this is women’s choice or lack of interest in the programme that keep their share in candidate structure so low.

3. I can’t stay in one place when I feel restless. Other people can stand or sit, while I need to move around. Being in motion somehow calms me down. It’s been like this for years, even when waiting on a bus stop I have to be in motion... I’m not cut out to be idle!

4. I can’t understand people reading notes until the last moment before any exam and delving into the content thereafter. I’d been studying for eight months and finished my preparations on Thursday. On Friday I put my mind at rest and didn’t think about the oncoming exam at all. I felt a bit stressed out in the evening, upon returning home and managed to ease up the next day, after I saw first questions on the exam sheet.

5. The exam doesn’t only test your knowledge. It would be too easy. It puts to the test your logistical skills and endurance.

The former as you need to strictly obey several rules, violation of any would result in termination of your candidacy to the programme. You need to check you have all permitted items and not have anything not permitted, which made me go to the test centre without keys and mobile phone. Getting to Centrum Expo XXI is a bit of a nuisance, getting out of there as well, especially if you’re not from Warsaw. Even if you live in the capital of Poland, still it is a bit of a challenge, as it is a few hundred metres away from the nearest bus stop. Therefore I’m immensely grateful to my father for insisting on dropping me off there and picking me up.

The latter as the exam consists of two sessions. The first, which last three hours and wears you out solid, is followed by an hour-long break. The break in fact lasts shorter, some 40 minutes, as you are not allowed to leave the exam room before all papers are collected. Within 40 minutes you need to queue up to a cloakroom with 300 other candidates, get your rucksack containing a packed lunch, immediately queue up to a cloakroom to give back your rucksack and in the meantime devour whatever you can (one sandwich and one apple were my only nutrition during the day), then go to the toilet and then check in for the second, three-hour long session, which ends at 5 p.m. At that time I was hungry, thirsty, felt cold (heating was off, excellent!) and virtually prostrating. At the end you’re in for to a 40-minutes-long wait to get you coat from the cloakroom…

I’m complaining a bit, indeed, but if you fork out thousands of zlotys for something, is it too much to expect good organisation and heating turned on? Nevertheless, I recognise endurance should be tested, as working environment for people working in financial industry require this and only the fittest can survive there. And after all, sacrifices must be made in a pursuit of a better life…

Needless to say, this is all an excellent example of rent-seeking. Now I financially support rent-seekers hoping to become one of them one day…

To the one who debunked the myth

I am dedicating this post to Michael Wolf, who served as Deputy Head of International Corporates at BRE Bank until late 2009.

If this posting is to prove something, it surely bears evidence that I’m a master of procrastination. Actually in everyday life I don’t tend to hang back on doing things I’m supposed to do, but this time broaching the topic of teaching foreign languages at SGH was put back and back. I hatched the idea of writing this post on 30 April 2009, so almost two years and three months ago. The only drawback of such delay is that I can’t remember as good as I would like to the event of that day. The overall picture of the issue remains unchanged, or, if it did change, things could have gone only worse.

And 30 April 2009 was the day when a conference on impact of economic crisis on German economy was held. The organiser of the event was one of student organisations focusing on economies of German-speaking countries (Studenckie Koło Naukowe Gospodarek Krajów Niemieckojęzycznych, not to grapple with the translation), so the debate was held in German. In the first part of the discussion participants had a 50-minutes long conversation on the main issue of the debate. Later students, till then being only audience to the discussion, were encouraged by moderators to ask questions. A few students pluck up courage and somehow strung together some questions in German. After one student particularly struggled to put his question into words, Mr Wolf decided to put us out of misery and offered in impeccable Polish that if we wished, we could ask questions in Polish, the he’d interpret them into German, reply in German, and once again in Polish. Thus he dealt a blow to everyone (students, teacher, organisers). The debate was meant to show students of Warsaw School of Economics can speak German and students… buggered up. In the meantime a German chap who just spent a few years in Poland brought a shame on them by showing off his fluency in Polish. But this is not the case, the case is that SGH for years has been famous for high level of teaching foreign languages. But has it deserved it.

In times of socialism, Warsaw School of Planning and Statistics (former name of SGH) was one of sparse places and the only one other than linguistics faculties, where students could learn foreign languages on a decent level. I don’t know how to define what a “decent level” is, but in a country where very few people knew foreign languages, good communication skills could be hailed as “proficiency”. Probably the bar wasn’t raised really high, and up till now no one bothered to improve the level of teaching.

The biggest myth about SGH was that it was a place where you could learn German. It was not just the opportunity to learn for free, but the whole thing was about being systemically forced to pull all-nighters to learn that language. After finishing a three-year course in German there I came to two conclusions:
1) much depends on a level of German newly admitted students stand for – many of them have a poor command of the language, so they have to work hard to catch up with the level of teaching,
2) with time, as linguistic skills of admitted students were declining, the school compromised and brought down the level of teaching. Lower entrance level meant later students would leave on a lower level.

According to curriculum, graduates of Bachelor’s studies should have a command of their first language (usually English, in my case as well) on C1 level and of their second language (usually German, in my case as well) also on C1 level. Entrance levels were set at B2 for 1st language and B1 for 2nd language. In fact my English was indeed somewhere around there, but thanks to my own work, not what I learnt at school, my German was at B2 level. The year I finished BA studies only some two or three groups were marked ‘C1’, the rest left with ‘B2’, ‘B1’, or only ‘A2’. Some students recruited in 2006 could not speak German at all. This was a consequence of flawed admission policy which allowed students who hadn’t taken Matura in German to get in.

While German is said to get the sleep off students’ eyes, English is said to be a piece of cake. For me, after the first year, the level was not ‘challenging’. During first two years I had classes with a woman who at first wanted to keep a high level, but then she loosened up. Second year was particularly not the time I could learn English intensively at school. In fifth semester I had a great teacher and I can sincerely declare I owe her a lot. I learnt a lot and in January 2009 I took my Bachelor’s exam in English. I passed it with the highest grade without lifting my little linger, which means the level was far too low! Then I had one term break in learning, when I took a CPE course in a private school. The base-case level of teaching met my expectations, but actual level was adjusted to the group, what eventually let me down… Then I decided I would never sign up for English classes at a language school. On Master’s studies I was assigned to a group run by a freaky and surely unhappy feminist. The level of her English was horrible and she gloated over other people’s command of English, which was really decent, yet far cry from proficiency. I could stand it for only one semester and put in an application for transfer to another group, run the teacher I had had classes with during the fifth semester and thank God had it approved. In the meantime I (claim to have) made a stride in English and classes with her were satisfying, but not challenging. Master’s exam was again a piece of cake, even with its allegedly worst, ‘Polish to English ad hoc translation’ part.

Learning German didn’t run that smoothly. During the first semester students were assigned to the groups according to their surnames. This means in each group there were people who barely spoke German and people fluent in it. After a fortnight authorities of SGH’s language teaching centre changed their mind and divided groups on the basis of level of students’ advancement in the language. Randomly, I came to a group taught by one of most lenient teachers at the whole school. Over six semesters, out of which during one my group was run by a stand-in (our teacher went for a sickie), I learnt some German, but mostly because I wanted to, not because systemic factors compelled me to.

In the case of German how much you learn depends on your teacher. This is a general principle, because I know people whose teachers were much more demanding and their German wasn’t better than mine. In the case of English students generally rest on laurels…

If I can advise anything (I’m talking to a brick wall, with no hopes for being heard), SGH’s authorities should:
1) not compromise even if students’ command of languages at entrance tests proves lower and lower – if students are poor they need to work harder to catch up or not go to SGH at all,
2) not cut down on number of course hours – I know teaching does cost money, but reducing learning hours by 40% over the whole course of studies will not impinge positively on grauduates’ profiles,
3) increase level of teaching English – a high school leaver should be on at least ‘upper-intermediate’ level and should be capable of reaching the provable fluency in general and business English.

English is an essential tool for almost every graduate of my school who wants to make a real career. And gone are the times when communicative English was fairly enough. At least once a week I have to read drivel written by the Poles who claim their English is at least ‘advanced’. Sometimes I make out that an author of such drivel had in mind, because I’m a Pole, sometimes I can’t because it’s too convoluted. The matter is now not about just getting by, but primarily on quality, so getting ahead.

I use English virtually every day at work, but lost touch with German at all. There were some odd situations when I had to exchange a few sentences in that language or read something, but these happened seldom. I’ve never felt a real incentive to learn German, as even in German corporations an official language is English and well-educated Germans speak English far, far better than well-educated Poles, so why bother? But recently my boss examined by German skills. I don’t know to what end, but it could be worth to think over the idea of brushing up on German…

'Business school' versus 'School of economics'

In practice, I have actually parted company with my school, although in theory I'll do it when I pass my Master's exam. Formally I'm still a student, and both as a student and as a would-be graduate (a diploma from the Warsaw School of Economics is a recognised 'brand') I should be interested in the strategy of WSE (PL: SGH), thus the direction in which it is drifting.

Recent years have brought significant changes in the workings of my university. Most of them have been brought about by an obligation to implement the so-called Bologna system. The biggest revolution to take place under the new system was the shift towards two-tier studies. Each student now has to no choice, but to take a three-year BA course and then, if they wish to continue their education, a two-year MA course. This has replaced the previous cycle of five-year MA studies, which left the decision to take a Bachelor's exam at students' discretion. The shift necessitated changes in the curricula. In the old system studies lasted five years, now they last three plus two years. This indeed equates to five, but the new system lacks continuity, as studies have to be split into two separate cycles and new curricula for each cycle have had to be drawn up.

Proponents of the shift (not those from Poland, but EU officials and scholars) pointed out the Bologna system would bring benefits to students. As it now transpires, its introduction was to the benefit of the overwhelming, problem-piling-up bureaucractic machinery and students are not key beneficiaries of the Bologna system. Since the introduction of the new system in 2006, when I began my studies, SGH has pressed on with two curriculum reforms. Both have come in for harsh criticism for cutting down on number of course hours allocated for "core" courses (intermediate macro- and microeconomics, advanced economics, statistics, econometrics, mathematics) and "not strictly economic" courses (sociology, economic history). The most ardent opponents of the reshaped curricula even cried out against SGH turning into a "vocational school" and retaining the word "economics" in its English name only.

In the West we have two different types of universities:
1) business schools,
2) schools of economics.
And they must not be mistaken for each other!

Let's look at the top bar at "The Economist's" main page.

This is not a coincidence that 'economics' and 'business' have separate sections.

The difference between the two is quite simple. Economics is about understanding people's and companies' behaviours on the marketplace and functioning of economies and it is a social science. Business in turn is simply about making money. The two are strongly tied-up with each other, yet the latter is just a part of the former.

This assertion leads us to another conclusion. It takes much more to educate a good economist than a good businessman. In fact a 'vocational school' would suffice to churn out graduates who would pursue their careers in 'business'. They should have all competencies and skills that would allow them to generate money for their corporations and, consequently, for themselves. A graduate of a business school can work in a consultancy firm, as accountant, auditor, product manager, at a bank, they can successfully run a company. In many of the jobs listed above they would outperform graduates of economics, but think about a business school graduate analysing financial markets, working in a central bank (remember the former president of Polish central bank, ridiculed for his diploma from an 'inferior US business school'?), as an economist at a bank or drafting a pension system reform. All those tasks require a graduate of economics, equipped not only with essential knowledge, but also taught to understand all complex phenomena that take place in the economy, taught to analyse and track causations and, above all, able to shape their own opinions independently. In the context of independence the word 'business' has to be stressed. Being in business involves money-related tie-ups and conflicts of interests that jeopardise an economist's independence. But bear in mind that only business, but also politics might pose a threat to an economist's independence.

Nevertheless, the education of an economist needs to be much broader that the one of a business school student. Courses such as sociology, economics of development, economic history, economic policy have to be run and taken by students. Being an economist requires broader horizons and open mind. The style of teaching should differ. Students of economics should be encouraged to discuss; during such discussions various opinions should clash, substantive arguments backed by examples and calculations should be traded. Analytical skills should be developed, students should be taught to discern possible impacts of some factors on other ones. A few useful rules should be instilled, such as recently quoted one that in economics you can prove a theory if you can't disprove it. And a grasp of psychology is essential when analysing the mechanics of economies and financial markets! Business students, in turn, can crack case studies, learn how to manage people, run companies, foist stuff upon customers and develop other skills requisite for making money.

I don't wish to denigrate students and graduates of business schools. They're just a different breed and are not cut out for some jobs. As a rich man I would not hesitate to take on a business graduate to run my company (but remember the currency-option botch-up from early 2009), but they would not be allowed to manage my personal finances.

And having said that I can't stress strongly enough there is no clear dividing line between business and economics. At my job I am somewhere in between; I try to make the most of my knowledge in economics, but the job has a tilt at the 'business', which means my career path might have to be reassessed...

Coming back to the issue of SGH, I'd like them to settle on 'school of economics' model. Maybe this is not what the market, ruled by money, needs most, but this what next generations will surely need. Moreover, 'business school' means taking a path of least resistance, while SGH with at least some of its excellent staff, is capable of aiming much higher. May it stay the Warsaw School of Economics, not in name only!

The first nation-wide day without debts

As an unwavering opponent of living in the red I can only acclaim the initiative of Polish financial firms and associations, taken in partnership with the biggest debt collection company, aimed at highlighting the problem which affects more and more Poles.

According to the estimations, about fifty per cent of Poles run up debts. They do it for different reasons – to improve their standard of living, to fulfil their dreams, to give their children a better future, to make ends meet or to pay off the earlier outstanding debts (which is a vicious circle in a way).

The scale of problem seems to be increasing – around 1,5 million of Poles default on debts or do not pay them in time. The bad debts hit bank’s portfolios and consequently balance sheets. Bank provisions and write-offs for bad debts are forecast to soar in 2010.

The mail goal of the action is to educate, along with the old principle “prevention is better than cure”. The organisers rightly put the insufficient financial knowledge down to the troubles indebted Poles get into. The biggest mistake of an average distressed debtor is trying to avoid contact with the creditor at all costs. It is not the point, from what I have learnt when I worked in a bank, the creditor will always be ready to negotiate – they want to recover their debts and avoid costs and formalities, which involves taking the collection into the court. So contact them, arrange the schedule of repayments, negotiate the terms of contract.

Having talked to some experts in the issue I came to two conclusions. First one is quite simple – in order not to fall in the trap of indebtedness we should change our consumer habits and not yield to the illusion of having something, despite not affording to buy it. A new TV, refrigerator or laptop bought on instalments is not yours until you pay it off. My second thought concerns education. I was not taken aback by the fact people cannot calculate the actual interest rate of a loan. The regulators, mindful of this obliged banks to include it (in Polish it is known as Rzeczywista Roczna Stopa Oprocentowania – RRSO, EN: annual percentage rate) in the prospectuses and contracts. The lack of strong mathematical skills may also explain unawareness of costs of credit. The borrowers sometimes do not realise they will have to give back much more than they had taken out. Still, it is not the most alarming fact yet. Much more shocking is what has been declared by many people who defaulted on their debts and their property has been foreclosed – those debtors had not realised they would have to pay it back. Mind-boggling dear reader? Yes, they thought it was a gift and they didn’t plan to return the money, not to mention paying the interest on it. Those are the poor, who fall into the trap and end up turned out of their flats. Not creditworthy, with bad credit history are rebuffed by the banks and become clients of loan sharks…

So once again education to move us forward!

Szybki magister was just a hoax...

…but I fell for it as well. Now I can have a sigh of relief…

There was something absurd in it, but the fictional university did a roaring trade – within a few days around five thousand people wanted to inquire about the fees, terms of studying, etc. I’d dearly step up the blogging frequency (you’re reading the 100th post on my blog), however this weekend I’m a bit short of time. To find out more about the made up university of Wyborcza, read their comprehensive report.

University of complacency – update

Like on cue, Gazeta Wyborcza published today an extensive report on the pitiful state of education on Polish universities. I’ve just skimmed it, after one of the lecturers told us about the articles in GW. The headings suggest my school is really not that bad…

Free market can engender pathologies

The public debate in Poland has recently concentrated on the issue of the level of education on Polish universities. Commentators and scholars after years deigned to notice how degraded the academic title of Master had been. Today virtually everyone who can afford to pay the fee can get the master’s degree. Why - the private universities have been mushrooming in last two decades. Set up by the businessmen willing to make money such schools churn out thousands of magisters with little knowledge and depressing feeling of wasted five years. No wonder, if their whole activity is based on “pretending” – we pretend that we teach them, they pretend to learn, at the end totally seriously we award them a master’s degree, because they have been paying us for five years, so the deserve to be “magistry”. Free market, although not flawless can pick out tawdry items. Such product are the qualifications of the graduates of those universities, often proved worthless by the labour market.

Reading the Friday issue of Gazeta Wyborcza I found an appalling example of master’s-for-money deal. I was mostly shocked by the message of the ad – Masz maturę – zrób magistra w dwa lata. Firstly the if not broken, then at least cracked Polish – zrób magistra. Should I draw it with crayons or conjure it up from my household waste? Or maybe look for an attractive creature of the opposite sex, do my job and wait for nine months – that’s even faster than two years! But how the hell can a high school leaver get the master’s degree within two years? On average it takes five. The ad gave the address of the School’s website. Curious to see what’s the catch I wasted some of my transfer limit and entered it. Below – the site only confirms the ad’s content and encourages the candidate with the drivelling summary of its offer.


“Unique teaching system” probably means nobody could stoop any lower. The further exploration of the website consumes my precious time and draws my exhausted eyes to the bottom of the page, where my sight runs across a caption (below).


Akademia nie gwarantuje zdobycia należytej wiedzy z zakresu wybranych kierunków w okresie studiów. Umożliwia w szybkim tempie przygotowanie studenta do obrony pracy magisterskiej.

I am deeply struck by the honesty of the school’s authorities. In other words they make no bones about the real goal of the undertaking – producing a graduate whose qualifications and knowledge won’t stand for anything!

At first it occurred to me such school should be shut down. But as I cooled off a bit and came to my senses I realised that according to the premise of rationality of choices made by the individuals such university should go bust without any regulatory help. If it does any harm to anyone, those harmed are the ones who choose to pay for education there – their choice and their potential misery after graduation.

Unfortunately it won’t go bust. There will always be the students who decide to study only to get the slip of paper called “a diploma”. We can only pin our hopes in the labour market – may it be able to verify the real value of job applicants.

Free market has in built-in inclination to favour mediocrity as it conforms to the expectations of the majority. That’s why in the prime time instead of an interesting documentary or a decent recognised film we have to watch “Taniec z gwiazdami”.

I think I detest Polish...

If you want to argue it’s a blasphemy or I shouldn’t speak like that about my mother tongue it’s your right. It took me quite long to get to such conclusion and what happened today was only the proverbial last straw – my friend asked my to translate quickly (and possible correctly) an excerpt of the report on the biomass in the UK. I glimpsed at the six pages long document, noticed there were no words I wouldn’t understand and tempted by the promise of generous pay I took up the offer.

Just after I set out to dealing with the text I realised or rather recalled one of the basic truths of linguistics: comprehension doesn’t have to translate into ability to translate. The main reason behind this very case is the structure of the language. English has a strict syntax, tends to be plain, uses few words to convey a certain message. In Polish, in turn, use of syntax is at user’s discretion (although putting the words together in the correct and comprehensible order requires some effort), but the worse feature is that my native language is too descriptive – it uses more words than English. To give you the idea of what the problem consists in, I’ll provide you with an example: “low-carbon economy” – could you fit the whole meaning of the term into two Polish words?

The second reason of my disinclination towards Polish is the ongoing distortion of the language, mangled by its native speaker (including those educated ones, like journalists – dreadful!). Sentences are built in such way that it’s hard to catch on what the author intended to say, many words are misused or overused. My mother, a graduate of Polish philology tells me it’s caused by a “linguistic paucity” (ubóstwo językowe) – people know too few words, so they face difficulties with expressing their feelings or giving information. That’s only one side of the coin, still probably the brighter one – in every nation there are scores of people who find it hard to express themselves, by dint of insufficient education. The darker side is misuse or excessive use of some words (may realizować serve as the best example – I hear it a few times a day and every time it pisses me off. As the Polish wiktionary informs, Pinolona was right to claim it’s derived from French and… what’s the most important the definition sets out the contexts it should be used in. They cover broadly the same situations as in English “realise” (1. put into practise, 2. turn into cash, 3. realise one’s plans, ambitions, dreams, 4. become a reality). So why do Poles have to use in hundreds of different contexts – realizować inwestycję (what means to build a house or a road, possibly also carry out another project, like construction of a sewage treatment plant or a windmill, don’t you be taken aback when you see pompous phrases like realizować drogę), realizować świadczenia (I felt like hitting my head against the wall – it means to pay (out) benefits), realizować zyski (to take profits), realizować usługi (to provide or render services), realizować zlecenie (to fulfil or execute an order), realizować płatności (to make payments), realizować materiał (to go over the curriculum).

Improperly used words often confuse translators – the task for a translator is much easier if the text in the source language is written in a plain way – then the work runs smoothly. Whenever they come across an improperly formulated phrase or sentence this perfect mechanism jams. A translator has to figure out the author’s intention, sometimes it’s imperative to change something in the structure of the text. As in the example of realizować – each case of misused Polish word has to be dealt with separately – in some cases realizować can be translated with another English verb, in others you just need to convert a sentence, just like in the receipt I got today by e-mail, after purchasing a top-up for my mobile phone. Doładowanie telefonu zostało zrealizowane will be translated as “your mobile phone has been topped up”. Simple, isn’t it?

After a longer, holiday break, my translation and linguistic fixation has been awakened. More freakish posts with questions I’m pondering upon will appear soon…

Quo vadis SGH?

Totally out of the blue, almost three weeks ago, on 22 July the Senate Curriculum Commission congregated and… I don’t know if unexpectedly, but passed a resolution on the changeover in the curriculum of Bachelor’s and Master’s studies (I start the latter in October so the reforms will affect me). The heated discussions about the direction my university should evolve have been held in public for months and the next step was just the par for the course, but… But I somehow deluded myself that the bureaucracy-stricken structure of my school would put off implementation of the reform, all in all it didn’t happen. Sadly I can only fall in with the scholars, students and other members of our academic community who disapproved of the drafts of changes, claiming Warsaw School of Economics was drifting towards a vocational school. So once again I sympathise with the ones who call out “Nie róbcie z SGH zawodówki!”.

The modification of the curriculum can’t be rather categorised as common-sense-based. The course of studies in the academy of economics which has pretences to be a member of elite and wants to compete with the best schools of economics abroad can be simplified in the way it is being done. Why were the advanced micro- and macroeconomics erased from the curriculum of Master’s studies? Is the managerial economics going to substitute for it? What was the main reason for crossing out specified specialisations from the curriculum? Should we pick the lectures on our own, yes, this is the step towards more freedom, but how about the specialisation note which appears on the diploma?

On Bachelor’s studies the changes will take a heavy toll on the knowledge of the graduates. Just take a first glance. Even in the times of communism, when Warsaw School of Planning and Statistics was called a “Red Fortress” (PL: Czerwona Twierdza), the distinguishing mark of the school was teaching two foreign languages on relatively high level. The current graduates of BA studies had to go through five semester long course of “language I” (the candidates are expected to have the command of this language on B2 level) and six semester long course of “language II” (here candidates should be on B1 level). The quality of teaching and all the stereotypes linked to it are the topic for the separate endless post, but let’s focus on the shot in foot, which is cutting down the length of both courses to four semester. Altogether 180 learning hours less than before! And the grasp of languages represented by students of SGH, although relatively good still leaves a lot to be desired. Nevertheless the command of two languages has given us the edge over the graduates of other universities. Why do the authorities want to take away one of our assets? The students will have the opportunity to carry on learning under the pool of learning hours and credit system, maybe it will be better to let them take the matters into their own hands? Why aren’t some courses like sociology or economic history compulsory. The proponents of the reform pointed out they’re not necessary or the students should have been given more freedom in making choices. After two years which elapsed since I’ve completed those courses I have conflicting feeling – many freshmen students find those lectures tedious and superfluous and treat as a ball and chain on their way to career and here we reach the heart of the matter – graduates of the prestigious Warsaw School of Economics should apart from strictly professional knowledge have broad mind, horizons, during their studies they should develop the passion to explore and the habit of critical looking at economic phenomena from different perspectives, taking into account psychology. A modern-day economist is not just a mathematician whose over-reliance on models and patterns leads up to bungled forecasts, it’s rather an open-minded person who has a thorough understanding of psychology, social factors influencing the economy, historical background which underlies some stances and be aware of many more things, unlike the callous traders closed in the dealing room who lump together Poland and Hungary when it comes to financial stability of both countries.

I don’t want my school to churn out graduates lacking general education. Narrow-minded people as far as I observed are more likely to try to outwit the others when it comes to financial matters and are more likely to be ignorant of obvious phenomena – they also led to the current crisis, they fuelled stock bubbles disregarding fundamental factors and elementary laws of economics. The two excellent examples of something what was missed out on are LTCM and the current investment results of Superfund (hedge fund managed by computer system operating on the basis of econometrical model)

For a conclusion – do the today’s drop-offs on stock exchanges herald the deeper correction? If so, I wouldn’t be surprised…

Breaking the silence...

Following the anecdote posted as a comment to my previous post about Polish mentality I think I can dissociate myself from the fellow blogger’s journey companions and put forward some solutions. Having read the story of discussion in the train I devised some concepts on what should be changed in Poland, slept on them, let them run through my head, now it’s time to tap them into my keyboard and later on spread into the outer world…

I classified my suggestions into three categories, according to the blog’s title. I doubt whether I did it correctly, but I hope it’s a minor glitch and the overall view is what matters here. It will be long, turns out to be the longest post ever, but I believe it’s worth spending half an hour reading it.

POLITICS

To start with, our perception of that realm critically needs to be modified. Today people come to politics driven by their lust for power, money, privileges, etc. and all of those factors which attract them to our sweet mire in fact corrupt them. The ideal model I would opt for is in a way close to the one which functions in the United States. The ones who decide to become politicians should be mature, experienced, reputable citizens, who had already achieved a lot in their lives but still strive for more. Position in politics should crown somebody’s career and should be therefore treated as distinction and public service to the compatriots. Money should not be a reason why people engage in political activity – politicians should be already well-off people who’d like to do something to the others and the financial aspect of their offices shouldn’t play a significant role.

I thought about some standards which could be set to be me met by politicians, for instance a precondition of graduation of university to be allowed to run for seat in parliament, to be a minister or president. The education should moreover be relevant to the post held by a certain official. At second thought I gave it up – firstly cause it’s in contradiction with the principles of democracy and equality of all citizens, secondly I took a quick at our two former and our current presidents. The first completed vocational school, the second lied about his full university education, the third is a professor and is he any wiser by that virtue?

Let’s touch upon a gist of democracy and misunderstanding it. Some of us, Poles, think it’s still not the best system, some discern its weaknesses but can’t find any alternative, some as allegedly the milieu of Gazeta Wyborcza sometimes give the skewed picture of democracy. In democracy everybody should have equal right to give voice to their opinions and nobody is entitled to claim that Kaczyński twins ought to be sent back to the moon. The beauty of democracy consists in the diversity of the political scene, big and wide enough to find room for moderate centre parties, left and right wing, populists and lunatic fringes. Everyone is granted a right to set up a party and register it, unless it refers to the ideas of communism or nazism. What I’m getting at is that nobody can say that “the Law and Justice party should disappear from our political arena”, no matter how many conceited journalists or pundits would utter such words, it mustn’t happen. Law and Justice will exist as long as there will be the political demand for them. Those are the citizens who decide about political future of politicians and it’s their role to deprive them of power, like they did with AWS in 2001 or Samoobrona and LPR in 2007. We have the power to send the ones who screwed it up to the political nonentity. And we can draw them out of there, dust them off, whenever it occurs to us our country is in need of them.

The next part is on the sidelines of politics – it connects law and bureaucracy. The first should be for sure devoid of loopholes, lame legislations but most of all clear. All the legal acts, deeds, decrees, bills should be rewritten into plain Polish (without bombastic, long, confound phrases), intelligible for an ordinary citizen. The formulation of many provisions leaves a lot to be desired – in a correct version legal regulations ought to be concise and meticulously stipulate everything, step by step, leaving no doubt what is required in a certain situation, how should the proceedings run, how is the particular case handled. And ubiquitous red tape which express lack of trust and need to control everything, keep an account, have stats about everything. Piles of papers, ladies with their omnipotent stamps behind the counters – that should be replaced with mechanism friendly for citizen but allowing the administrative system to function effectively. The approach of both state and people has to change here – state offices should provide the information for their applicants and the applicants should come to the offices fitted out in knowledge on what they want to handle – efficient mutual aid would make lives of both parties involved easier but the willingness is here essential.

ECONOMY

The thing I’ve condemned most often on this blog is the current pension system in Poland, chiefly its second pillar, so called open pension funds. The biggest evil here is the compulsory participation combined with extortionate charges. My counter-proposal is that:
1) the participation in first pillar (ZUS) should be obligatory, it should guarantee every working citizen a diminutive pension benefit, sufficient enough to eke out a living – thus the premium would be quite low. Everybody should pay the same per cent of their salary, in my view less than five per cent, and everybody should be granted benefit in the same amount after pensioning off – that would be the element of social solidarity.
2) I don’t want the pension funds to be wound down – participation in that part of the system shouldn’t be, however obligatory. The newly employed ones shouldn’t be forced to choose a pension fund, the ones who already save there for their pension should be permitted to withdraw all their money amassed there, no matter how big fluctuations on financial markets it would cause. Government should clearly state it gives the citizens free rein and let them save for their pension on their own. If they wish, they can join OFE if they think their money would be managed properly there, if not, set it aside to a bank, buy pension insurance, invest in stocks, bonds or simply go on binge and throw it around within one night if it’s their wish. Scholar like professor Marek Góra have repeatedly asserted that people are too stupid to save for their retirement on their own. Maybe indeed they are, but humans are free and no one, virtually no one can make them pay private companies for managing their money, regardless of the investment results. If you wish, do whatever you want with your money, but don’t expect the state to help you if you spend your money foolishly. Maybe it’s inhuman, but that’s probably the only way we can take matters into our own hands. Besides, government should encourage people to save, through tax relieves and promotion drives, so give incentive not coerce! More about my views on pension system – click tag “OFE”.

Almost everyone in this country grumbles about their tiredness after twenty five years of working, average age of retirement is the lowest in Europe – a shameful figure. Let’s do away with the pathology and put the system of undeserved privileges to an end – people in Poland pension off cause they’re too lazy, sick of their jobs, but nobody realises their pension benefits are financed from other taxpayers’ premiums and taxes (every years ZUS receives a subsidy from state budget), or maybe to be closer to the actual truth – they push it away from their minds. Changing the ratio of employed to unemployed would surely cure our public finance sector. Early retirement is considered a privilege, whereas I think it should signify someone’s weakness – if you’re unable to work you must be ailing, something wrong must be wrong with you if you don’t want to contribute to the creation of national income.
When we’re at social welfare field – it’s time to crack down on fictitious certificates of inability to work excessively made out by doctors. Guy comes to the doctor and asks: “Sir, I’m forty-five, I don’t feel like working any more, I want to get the benefit”. Who pays for such lies and laziness? We!

Claimant’s stance – it’s about time we realised that the state which collects taxes is not an institutions which rips us off. For the taxes we pay we get the infrastructure, schools, partly health service, officials working for us. Let’s switch into another stance – not what I deserve but what I can give. We don’t want to pay taxes but we want to get the benefits from state – for free?

In a few years time I’d propose reaching the balanced budget. Expenditure will not exceed revenue – simple, although never applied. Less money would be needed to finance the debt, investors will lose safe, risk-free securities, gilt-edged securities would not have to be obligatorily bought by pension funds. Markets would sooner or later cope with it somehow – the topic is elaborated on in one of the early posts.

Taxation – the everlasting dilemma of combining justice and effectiveness. Solution? – make it simple, as simple as possible. Reduce tax relieves to minimum, they give a lot of room for abuses, reducing them will also bring down the amount of paperwork to be done to serve it. My suggestion is a flat tax with annual deductions of around ten to fifteen thousand zlotys – the effective taxation rate will be progressive – thus the poorest would pay very little or no tax and as the income would grow, the effective rate of taxation would also rise, but not as drastically as it does now.

The labour relations are where the two conflicting interests coincide. The employers want to pay as little as possible and exploit the workforce as much as possible, the employees would like to work as little as possible and get as much as possible. In the face of this, employers represent the wild capitalism and trade unions represent “who cares” approach. The former don’t take into account some factors (they’re humans, not machines, they have to provide for their families) as they’re chasing profits, the latter selfishly require pay rises and prevent lay-offs no matter how bad the situation of the company is. The trade unions should intervene only when the employer treats his staff really unfairly, in other cases their strikes are to be regarded as disrupting enterprise’s functioning. The “give and take” deal would be helpful here – both parties should make concessions and act in unison bearing in mind the consequences for the another party.

Monetary policy – I can’t say I disapprove of the way it is led currently, nevertheless I would opt for a bit tighter one. Price stability is the overriding goal in my opinion, our country can’t pay the price of high inflation just to retain the high pace of economic growth. There’s also another dimension of keeping interest rates high – market participants are encouraged to save and dissuaded from taking out loans. The economy, to a large degree propelled by credit would be cooled down, but just look at the change of behavioural patterns – it appears to be beneficial. Fancy picking on it – go ahead!

Role of state in the economy – first not to harm. But bother to act, where it’s essential. State should counteract monopolies which are indispensable part of free market economy, it should take over some industries where natural monopolies exist – such as utilities. The state firm wouldn’t be geared at profits, instead they’d focus on providing services to people and expected only to break even. Government should be also accountable for maintenance of infrastructure, construction of new roads, etc. All the parts of infrastructure are public goods so I oppose against toll motorways. Of course state projects should be carried out by private companies but roads are to be owned by state and be free for everyone! Another state’s duty which I postulate that it must be fulfilled is the protection of the weakest. The weakest – you mean who? – You’d ask. The poorest? Not this time? According to the popular belief it’s workforce – poor people exploited by the capitalists. The ones who claim it to my eye depart from the truth. Workers might take industrial actions or resort to another way of blackmailing their company to attain what they hold out for. The weakest link in the economic chain are the customers. Their rights are violated the most often, it’s harder for them to gather together and protest, although there have been such actions like the one staged by irate mBank clients. The government should provide for the legal regulations aimed at consumer protection, protection from big chain stores, monopolist service providers, etc. Consumers are almost always doomed to lose a battle with the stronger company or have to wait for another company to bring back competition on the market and liberate them from clutches of colluded companies, like Play did on mobile telephony market, causing call charges to drop. The step in a good direction is the activity of UKE, with Anna Streżyńska in charge of the office.

Is anything more to be done? Certainly yes, state should actively participate and support all programmes of financial education. The society which understands the mechanisms of economy is less susceptible to yield to populists, can manage their finances better. Better education and raised awareness could also prevent such situations as run on investment funds at the peak of bull market in 2007. Well-educated citizens are then more likely to be treated as wise and responsible and assumed to be able to do without guides.

SOCIETY

The phenomenon which looms as the most disturbing these days is imperviousness (PL: znieczulica), the disease, which afflicted our society. An old woman suddenly passes out in the street – what’s your reaction – it doesn’t concern you, it’s not your business, you’re in hurry. That the classic example – pedestrians pass by, cars drive by, fortunately there’s almost always somebody to stop, call help, bring round. Why are we so insensitive, has anybody wondered what how would the other people behave if it happened to us? Some time ago I started donating small sums of money to charity or making transfers into the accounts of my fellows in need. My contribution is always small – I’ve never given more than twenty zlotys to one person, however I deeply believe if many people give a few zlotys the sum required for treatment or for other purpose will be raised. It also involves trust, cause I have to believe I’m not endorsing someone who tries to cadge off money.

Mistrust – the next disease which slowly devours our society, undermining its foundations, loosening bonds between its members. It goes down from the highest strata of our society – from elites, bringing us down to uncivilised standards of behaviour. Former minister of justice recorded his talks cause he had been driven by mistrust. People lie to one another, cause they’re driven by mistrust, it’s way of playing safe. “If I tell the truth, I’ll be worse off” – that’s our philosophy. Every time someone wants to gives us a hand we’re scratching beneath the surface and try to discover real ignoble intentions. Let’s change it – let’s trust one another, world is full of bastards but good men still prevail, let’s believe in sincerity, compassion, don’t be driven by egoism, mind the others, their needs. The rule of synergy usually applies, so two plus two might give five, but two lies never give one truth. You may benefit from help you give to your fellows, maybe immediately, maybe in the future, maybe not materially but through spiritual satisfaction or through the priceless feeling of well-fulfilled duty.

Money. During the lecture in diplomatic protocol I found out the topic of money is not brought up between well-mannered people. Poland is a shameful example, we quite often boast about our money, that is a bit silly but not harmful, there’s a much worse trend. We simply detest when other people have more money than we, but the worst is that we suppose they come into that money in a criminal way. How does it work? Your neighbour buys a brand new cars. First impression – you’re green with envy, second thought – where did he take the money from? Everyone who owns a mansion, top-of-the-range car, still gets about, wears brand clothes must be a criminal, thief, must conduct a shady business. To big money one can come into by sheer hard work, often making huge sacrifices. My parents have been scrimping and saving for years to buy a terraced house, they have never earned very well but they lied to their family, friends about our financial situation. The same was done by our family and friends, everyone lies they have very little money and barely make ends meet, it’s a pathology, it’s cult of losers, disseminated also by Kaczyński twins – they’re proud they haven’t amassed any property, except for the house of their parents. In America, they’d be ridiculed for it! If you see your neighbour buys a new car, try to match up to him – pull up your socks, work harder, be high-flyer. In Poland it’s easier to bring somebody down than to pull yourself up. That’s why we’re not likely to be as rich as the other nations. The best illustration of our mentality is the scene from “Dzień Świra” – Pole’s prayer, approach entrenched in our mentality – gloomy picture…

Gdy wieczorne zgasną zorze,
zanim głowę do snu złożę,
modlitwę moją zanoszę,
Bogu Ojcu i Synowi.
Dopierdolcie sąsiadowi!
Dla siebie o nic nie wnoszę,
tylko mu dosrajcie, proszę!
Kto ja jestem?
Polak mały! Mały, zawistny i podły!
Jaki znak mój? Krwawe gały!
Oto wznoszę swoje modły do Boga, Maryi i Syna!
Zniszczcie tego skurwysyna!
Mojego rodaka, sąsiada, tego wroga, tego gada!
Żeby mu okradli garaż,
żeby go zdradzała stara,
żeby mu spalili sklep,
żeby dostał cegłą w łeb,
żeby mu się córka z czarnym
i w ogóle, żeby miał marnie!
Żeby miał AIDS-a i raka,
oto modlitwa Polaka!

Sorry for expletives, sorry for the blasphemy and sorry for the lack of translation.

Initially I planned to refrain from referring to Polish Catholicism. It might be offensive, it might be distressing, I’ll hold back and only share one observation – it’s unreflective. Poles go to church cause they were taught to do so, their faith isn’t really strong, doesn’t rest on foundations, Poles treat catholic teachings selectively, the best example is the attitude to pre-marital sex or contraception. What should the church be? Not the buildings, not the clergy but the community of believers – that’s in my, atheist’s opinion the definition of church. I deeply respect and admire true believers who follow Ten Commandments and mostly obey the ultimate Great Commandment, those who are always ready to lend a helping hand, show compassion, never hate, never condemn, are far cry from Polish Catholicism after Radio Maryja’s fashion. Ten Commandments contain some universal rules every decent and moral man should obey and faith in God or belonging to the church should not be a benchmark of being a good man. Church’s attempts to interfere into public life by opposing against in vitro fertilisation or abortion are groundless for me. The true Catholic would never have an abortion, so trying to make everybody comply with the ethics of Catholic church bears witness or church’s weakness. I know it’s a controversial topic, however, we deal here with the matters of human conscience.

It was meant to be shorter, I swear. It was meant to be a collection of my proposals, which put together would outline the shape of Poland I’d dream up. It turned out to be rather a downbeat diagnosis of our national bad traits, analysis of the stereotypes. If in spite of this you deem this post valuable, spread it, give links to, paste some excerpts, I sign away any rights to it. There are the moments when I believe that my country can be changed, there are also the moments when I doubt whether it will ever happen, but without concerted effort it's unattainable...